no title

Putin acted in Russia’s interest

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

I thank letter writer George Kalbouss, an associate professor emeritus of Slavic languages, for providing some context and rationale for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motives in proposing the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons (“Putin has reasons to back deal,” last Saturday).

Since the proposal was made, a deal has been reached between the U.S. and Russia on the destruction or removal of these weapons by mid-2014, and the Assad regime already has handed over an initial inventory of its chemical-weapons arsenal to a relevant international watchdog body.

Much of the discourse on this topic from some of our prominent lawmakers, especially after Putin’s op-ed column in The New York Times on September 11, was marked by a dismissal of the proposal as a ploy by Russia to save Assad and triumphalism — with a claim that Russia’s support resulted from our threat of the use of force. The reaction to the op-ed itself was stronger, even visceral.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, felt “insulted” by it; and , Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “almost wanted to vomit.”

Self-righteousness may have a therapeutic value, but is of no use in understanding serious issues such as the foreign policy of a country.

Putin’s KGB career explains Russia’s foreign policy as much as President Ronald Reagan’s movie career explained U.S. foreign policy.

It is possible that our threat of force prompted Putin to offer the chemical-weapons proposal. That assumes that Putin and his advisers were unaware of the widespread opposition to the use of force among the American public and Congress, and President Barack Obama’s well-known reluctance to get involved in yet another Mideast war.

It is more likely, as explained by Kalbouss, that Russians want Syria free of chemical weapons for their own reasons. American threats of force may have served their cause by allowing them to nudge Bashar Assad along.

If that is the case, no matter how indignant or even physically discomforted some of us may feel about Putin’s KGB background and his op-ed column, he did what the president of a country is supposed to do, namely pursue and advance his nation’s interests.